Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-19
NO READING OFT.

Houston Post (antD: Quite number
of the state newspapers are engaged in an
energetic discussion as to the probable
future course CT the party relative to
those Democrats who advocated and
voted for prohibition in the recent cleo
ton. These papers, as rule, have taken
their cues from an interview has
with Judge George Clark, late
chairman of the state anti-prohibition
committee, and published speech. made
by Congressman Mills, but the many snd
different expressions of opinions are any
thing else than harmonious. SO fSr as
the Post is concerned, it is unable TO
see why this question should be
permitted TO become disturbing factor
in the future transactions of the psrty.
There is no good reason why it should.
In dealing with the question:, indeed,
it stand IN need OF any attention st all
the only thing to do is to do what is
right, and the way to do that is to stick
to the principles and the usages of the
Democratic party. This is government
of the people, and the Democratic party
is the party CT the people, because it
takes its life from the very principles
upon whIc the government itself is
founded. All Democratic authority must
and does come from the people, it
matters not what may be selected as the
means tor the enunclation or assertion of
such authority. The platform of the
state Democratic convention is nothing
more nor less than the hermonlZed views
of aggregated communities, and thus, the
will Of the people at large is made the
voice Of the central convention. The
party authority being grounded in the
people, any and ell questions of party
fealty must be settled by the people in
their primaries. II, therefore, by way Of
illustration, one of the leaders OF the late
prohibition movement should be Sc
lected by his county convention as a
delegate 10 the state convention the
lstter body would not, the Post takes it
have the authority to deny him any OF the
rights belonging to such accredited dele
gate because of any act OF his in the
past His hone people having passed
; upon both his personal fitness and party
fealty, and being suited themselves, i
would not be for other people to ques-
ton their sovereign action in the matter
Hence, if any reading out Of the Demo
| cratic party is to be done next year, i
2 must be done in the county primaries, anC
not in the state convention. So much TO
that phase of the question. Now tn
2 other question arises, should the prima
i ries engage in the disciplining business
e or to use more common expression, tn
reading out process? Judge Clark sal
? in his interview: 81 am in favor of tol
4 erance for the rank and file of Democrat
. who thoughtlessly followed of this pro
hibition craze, and will oppose their pre-
d sc-iptien. For the fanatical leaders W
: have no truce" The Post concludes tina
y in this Judge Clark speaks for himself in
J.. diyidually, indicating simply the cours
he thinks should be pursued. He coul
5 not have meant to do more than this, be
q cause on this subject he has no authorit
s to speak for any one but himself.
!, the same interview he charges certsi
= Democrats, who became prohibitio
! leaders, with bad faith to the part
n The Post believes this charge to be tru
it in fact knows it to be true, and for TIT
1t reason favors the insertion of an an
e sumptuary plank in the next state pla
# form. When this is done Democrats wi
e choose to 60 eff after passing politica
n isms will understand in advance the col
o sequences of such action. The Post
lie opposed to reading anybody out of Il
h party. 1t is in favor of letting everybo(
y stay in; but, when the platform OF pril
II ciples is made, in the language OF t
d Georgia orator "those who don't like
If can pour it back IN the Jug"